By: Aikaterini (Katerina) Tsampi

On 4 November 2025, in the case of Vainik and Others v. Estonia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment that could have serious implications for health rights and tobacco control policies in Europe (Council of Europe Member States) – if not beyond. The ECtHR found that the absolute ban of smoking in Estonian prisons violates human rights. The ECtHR is considered the guardian of human rights in wider Europe and one of the most influential international courts. It monitors the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a human rights treaty, that celebrated its 75th anniversary on the date of the ruling.

The case in a nutshell

This is the first time that the ECtHR has been invited to assess the issue of smoking in prisons from the perspective of and the impact of a total ban on smoking in prison on prisoners’ rights. Specifically, they considered prisoners’ rights under Article 3 of the ECHR, which states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and Article 8 which states that everyone has the right to respect for their private life.

The ECtHR dismissed the prisoners’ allegation that the ban on smoking constituted ill-treatment, finding that even if being prevented from smoking had caused prisoners some level of stress and anguish, the severity of suffering does not meet the high threshold of ill-treatment as outlined in the convention. The finding that the ban does not fall within the protective scope of Article 3 of the ECHR is an expected yet important one. In previous cases brought by prisoners who suffered from exposure to second-hand smoking, the ECtHR had that the impact of second hand smoking on the health and well-being of prisoners who do not smoke does fall within the scope of ill-treatment.

Until now, the ECtHR had not addressed which forms of tobacco-control measures in prisons are compatible with the requirements of the ECHR. In previous cases, the ECtHR from ruling on whether the ECHR requires the complete segregation of prisoners who smoke and those who do not. There is not currently a common approach among the Council of Europe Member States with regard to the regulation of smoking and protection against second hand smoking in prisons.

While the Court did not consider the Estonian ban resulted in ill-treatment as per Article 3, it nonetheless found that the far-reaching and absolute prohibition of smoking in Estonian prisons violated Article 8 of the ECHR because it disproportionately interfered with the personal autonomy and decision of prisoners to smoke, an activity that they found enjoyable and comforting. The ruling in Vainik and Others marks a pivotal shift in this respect.

A moment for caution

With the ECtHR ruling that a total smoke ban in prisons is not compliant with Article 8 of the ECHR, the judgment requires the particular attention of tobacco control experts, as it may undermine the significant progress that States have made in tobacco control, particularly under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). This is even more alarming now that a recent   reveals that FCTC progress is losing momentum. If the judgment becomes final, Estonia will be legally bound to implement it, modifying its policy on total smoking ban in prisons. Furthermore, the impact of the ECtHR cases goes far beyond the respondent State, as they have an interpretative value that pragmatically affects the policies of other State Parties to the ECHR. For example, the United Kingdom will have to revisit its smoking ban in Scottish prisons and other jurisdictions that were gradually moving towards more significant policies for smoke-free environments in prison contexts may reconsider their plans.

However, for now, the ruling should not be seen as a blanket halt to progressive policies on smoke-free spaces, nor as an advocacy tool for advancing a “right to smoke in prisons” – or even a more general “right to smoke” – positioned in opposition to the right to health. It is also important to consider that the ECtHR accepted that Estonia’s prison smoking ban pursued two legitimate aims: protecting the health of others and preventing disorder or crime. It furthermore accepted that that smoking is not an indispensable or inextricable facet of an individual’s identity. The ECtHR also based its finding on the violation of Article 8 on the assertion that “the national authorities, by imposing a complete ban on smoking in prisons without assessing its importance and impact from the perspective of personal autonomy of prisoners who smoke, failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for that far-reaching and absolute prohibition

What’s next

The ruling that the Estonian ban on smoking in prisons is a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR was reached by a narrow margin (four votes to three) within the Court’s Third Section. The majority mostly relied on the lack of consensus among CoE on the need to fully ban smoking in prison settings; the lack of an assessment of the importance and impact of ban from the perspective of the personal autonomy of prisoners who smoke; and the failure of Estonia to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for far-reaching and absolute prohibition. However, the ECtHR did not consider the rights of prisoners who smoke and the rights of prisoners and prison staff who do not smoke. It has also not holistically considered obligations of parties to the FCTC and the requirements of This is in sharp contrast with other health-related cases it had decided, such as those concerning climate-change or doping in sport.

The judgment, which elicited a high number of individual opinions (five in total), may still be referred to the ECtHR Grand Chamber. It is expected that Estonia will request its referral. A referral could potentially provide an opportunity for the ECtHR judicial plenary of 17 judges to have the opportunity to consider aspects of the case that were not addressed in the ruling from the Third Section, such as scientific evidence on smoke-free environments and legal developments under the FCTC.

Should the case be referred to the Grand Chamber, the role of the tobacco control experts and the public health community could be crucial in this case. The ECHR system allows NGOs and experts to inform the ECtHR on specialised issues that are beyond its expertise, through third-party interventions. This will be an important moment for experts in tobacco control to ensure the ECtHR has the evidence it needs.

Aikaterini (Katerina) Tsampi, PhD, Department of Transboundary Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen